| Literature DB >> 24453485 |
Bi-Huei Wang1, Chien-Lin Lin2, Te-Mao Li3, Shih-Din Lin4, Jaung-Geng Lin5, Li-Wei Chou6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study investigated the clinical efficacy of electroacupuncture (EA) in inhibiting upper-extremity spasticity in chronic stroke patients, and also in mapping a unique preliminary acupoint-selection protocol.Entities:
Keywords: acupoints; acupuncture; electroacupuncture; motor point; spasticity; stroke
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24453485 PMCID: PMC3894143 DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S53814
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Interv Aging ISSN: 1176-9092 Impact factor: 4.458
Acupoints used in this study
| Acupuncture point | Location | Depth |
|---|---|---|
| Neiguan (PC6) | On the palmar side of the forearm, 2 cun | Perpendicular insertion 0.5–0.8 cun |
| Shaohai (HT3) | With the elbow flexed, at a midpoint of the line connecting the medial end of cubital crease and the medial epicondyle of the humerus. | Perpendicular insertion 0.5–0.8 cun |
| Shounizhu | Locate at the flexion side of the forearm, 6 cun | Perpendicular insertion 0.5–1.0 cun |
| Zeqian | 1 cun | Perpendicular insertion 0.5–1 cun |
Notes:
Cun is a measurement used for acupuncture point location. One cun is equal to the space between the distal interphalangeal joint and the proximal interphalangeal joint on the middle finger
Ex-UE is an extra acupuncture point instead of meridian acupuncture point.
Figure 1Flow diagram showing the paths for recruited patients.
Abbreviations: EA, electroacupuncture; SR, standard rehabilitation; MA, minimal acupuncture.
Demographic characteristics of the subjects in both groups
| Basic data | Experimental group (n=9) | Control group (n=6) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 61.67±6.91 | 55.17±12.92 | 0.2247 |
| Sex | 0.6044 | ||
| Male | 3 | 1 | |
| Female | 6 | 5 | |
| Stroke duration (year) | 4.67±2.00 | 5.33±1.03 | 0.4687 |
| Type of stroke | 0.6084 | ||
| Ischemic | 5 | 2 | |
| Hemorrhagic | 4 | 4 | |
| Side affected (body) | 0.6084 | ||
| Left | 5 | 2 | |
| Right | 4 | 4 | |
| Lesion site | |||
| Supratentorial | 7 | 5 | |
| Infratentoral | 2 | 1 | |
Note: Level of significance set at P<0.05.
Changes in R2–R1 of elbow and wrist joints in the two groups
| Treatment period | Experimental group (n=9)
| Control group (n=6)
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2–R1 (after–before treatment) | R2–R1 (after–before treatment) | |||
| Elbow joint | ||||
| 1 week | −26°±32.48° | 0.0079 | −0.33°±13.99° | 0.9557 |
| 3 weeks | −30.89°±19.16° | 0.0013 | −5.33°±22.03° | 0.7157 |
| 6 weeks | −40.75°±35.92° | 0.0149 | 6.33°±17.32° | 0.4114 |
| Wrist joint | ||||
| 1 week | 3°±11° | 0.4977 | 5.67°±13.05° | 0.3361 |
| 3 weeks | −1.22°±13.30° | 0.7898 | 2.67°±10.26° | 0.6968 |
| 6 weeks | −3.63°±20.20° | 0.6273 | 0.67°±19.29° | 0.9358 |
Note: Level of significance set at P<0.05
P<0.05.
Figure 2Intragroup and between-group change of R2–R1 of elbow joint and wrist joint. *P<0.05.
Comparison of R2–R1 between experimental and control groups
| Treatment period | Experimental group (n=9) | Control group (n=6) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| R2–R1 of elbow joint | |||
| Pretreatment | 72.67°±29.24° | 59.67°±12.80° | 0.2632 |
| 3 weeks | 41.78°±19.38° | 53.33°±11.55° | 0.3604 |
| 6 weeks | 31.75°±17.38° | 66°±11.87° | 0.0014 |
| R2–R1 of wrist joint | |||
| Pretreatment | 28.33°±13.10° | 10.33°±15.77° | 0.0316 |
| 3 weeks | 27.11°±16.44° | 10.00°±28.21° | 0.7698 |
| 6 weeks | 26.00°±18.70° | 11.00°±27.91° | 0.2503 |
Note:
Level of significance set at P<0.05.
Figure 3Comparison of acupoints used in this study and motor point of forearm muscle (drawn by Wang).
Abbreviations: Ex-UE, extra acupuncture point instead of meridian acupuncture point.